Afroman has emerged victorious from an invasion of privacy and defamation case filed against him by seven members of Ohio’s Adams County Sheriff’s Office over mocking videos and social media posts the rapper put out after a failed 2022 raid on his home.
“We did it, America! Yeah, we did it! Freedom of speech! Right on! Right on! Yeah! God bless America!” the 51-year-old rapper, born Joseph Foreman, shouted outside the courthouse after the Wednesday evening verdict as supporters rallied behind him. In the clip, under a white fur coat, he was rocking the same American flag shades and red, white and blue suit and tie he had worn on the stand Tuesday.
Four deputies, two sergeants and a detective with the Adams County sheriff filed the lawsuit in March 2023, seeking to reclaim any money the rapper made from what they said was unauthorized use of their likenesses. The group wanted nearly $4 million in damages. Foreman used footage from the raid in videos for songs including “Lemon Pound Cake” to make money to pay for the damage done to his home during the raid, when his front gate was broken down and his front door smashed in.
The plaintiffs said in their lawsuit that the posts and videos caused them “humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation” and made it difficult to do their law enforcement work.
At trial, all seven plaintiffs testified about the harassment they had suffered because of the rapper’s music and videos. One, Deputy Lisa Phillips, had her gender identity called into question in Foreman’s videos and social media posts. She cried on the stand as a video suggesting she enjoyed sex with other women was played for the court.
The jury apparently agreed with the argument that the sheriff’s officers were acting in a public capacity during the raid and therefore were not shielded from criticism of their behavior.
“No reasonable person would expect a police officer not to be criticized. They’ve been called names before,” defense lawyer David Osborne said in closing arguments for the rapper and comedian, known for his breakout 2000 hit, “Because I Got High.”
In 2022, the sheriff’s team was acting on a warrant showing probable cause that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on the property and alleging that trafficking and kidnapping had happened there. No evidence of a crime was found, and no charges were filed.
Foreman wasn’t home during the raid but was able to see at least part of it via a video recorded by his ex-wife and footage captured on his home security system before law enforcement turned off those cameras. He said on the stand that the raid traumatized his children, who were 10 and 12 at the time.
“The whole raid was a mistake. All of this is their fault,” Foreman testified Tuesday. “If they hadn’t wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit, I would not know their names, they wouldn’t be on my home surveillance system, and there would be no songs, nothing.”
Foreman also defended his right to use the raid footage as fodder for his work.
“After they left, I had the right to kick the can and to do what I had to do to repair the damage they brought to my house. Yes, I did,” he testified. “I have freedom of speech. I’m a rapper. I entertain.”
Foreman discussed his reaction to the lawsuit with local station WCPO Channel 9 in 2023. “From the first 10 seconds, I was offended. I was appalled. I was like ‘What?’ Then I started laughing,” he said. “These guys with their rifles are crying about my comedy songs.”
Meanwhile, as the jury deliberated Wednesday, an entirely different Adams County Sheriff’s Office was feeling online heat linked to the trial: the office in Colorado’s Adams County.
“The Adams County Sheriff’s Office has received a flood of social media comments, DMs, and phone calls about the #Afroman defamation trial,” the Colorado department said on X. “It’s clear this is important to a lot of people. There’s just one small issue: that’s the ACSO in Ohio. We are the ACSO in #Colorado. Different states, same name.”
Afroman testified Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by seven members of an Ohio sheriff’s office who allege he used their likenesses without permission in music videos and on merchandise and spread lies about them after they raided his home in August 2022.
The 51-year-old, whose real name is Joseph Edgar Foreman, said on the stand Tuesday that he was in the right, according to local station WCPO Channel 9 in Cincinnati.
“The whole raid was a mistake. All of this is their fault,” Foreman testified, taking the stand wearing sunglasses with American flag lenses and a red, white and blue suit and matching tie made of fabric recalling the American flag. “If they hadn’t wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit, I would not know their names, they wouldn’t be on my home surveillance system, and there would be no songs, nothing.”
Officers were acting in 2022 on a warrant showing probable cause that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on the property. The warrant also alleged that trafficking and kidnapping had happened there. No evidence of a crime was found, and no charges were filed. Foreman wasn’t home during the raid but was able to see at least part of it via a video recorded by his ex-wife and footage captured on his home security system before law enforcement turned off those cameras.
It was that footage that was used in the various videos the rapper subsequently posted, including a music video for the song “Lemon Pound Cake,” which he wrote about the raid.
Officers tore down his door, he said, and damaged his house, taking money, vape pens and a small amount of marijuana. There was a discrepancy about the amount of money taken and returned to the rapper, which seemed to be a point of contention linked to whether he was misrepresenting what the deputies did during the raid.
“After they left, I had the right to kick the can and to do what I had to do to repair the damage they brought to my house. Yes, I did,” Foreman said. “I have freedom of speech. I’m a rapper. I entertain.”
His testimony came on the second day of the trial, after the deputies took the stand the first day and testified that though the raid wasn’t perfect, Foreman had been spreading lies about them for years since it occurred. Deputy Lisa Phillips, whose gender identity had been called into question in Foreman’s videos and social media posts, cried on the stand as some of those videos were played for the court.
Footage with a song called “Licc’em Low Lisa” showed Foreman saying he thought he would “crack some musical jokes” in the wake of the raid, then going to comfort a crying actor who resembled Phillips. “I didn’t know they hurt you that bad. … I was just having fun with a bad situation.” The same video showed the actor engaging in sexual activity with another woman.
In their lawsuit, WCPO said, the deputies said the posts and videos caused them “humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation” and made it difficult to do their law enforcement work.
In an amicus brief, however, the ACLU argued that the deputies’ lawsuit was a “classic entry into the SLAPP suit genre,” referring to a type of lawsuit that seeks to discourage criticism of public officials.
“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.
The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.
One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.
Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?
She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.
State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.
(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)
In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.
That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.
Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.
But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.
Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.
Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”
Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.
There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.
Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.
Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.
“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”
Others were more blunt.
“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”
All eyes were really on California.
— Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative
Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.
“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.
Others saw it differently.
“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”
Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.
“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.
Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.
“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.
Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.
“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”
Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.
The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.
“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.
Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.
(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)
The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.
The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.
“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.
Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.
Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.
The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.
Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.
“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”
An armed man drove into the secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s resort in Florida, as another vehicle was exiting before being shot and killed early Sunday morning, according to a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service.
The man, who was in his early 20s and from North Carolina, had a gas can and a shotgun, according to Anthony Guglielmi, the Secret Service spokesman. The man had been reported missing by his family a few days ago, and investigators believe he headed south and picked up the shotgun along the way.
Guglielmi said a box for the weapon was discovered in the man’s vehicle after the incident, which took place around 1:30 a.m.
The man killed was identified by investigators as 21-year-old Austin Tucker Martin, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the investigation.
Trump has faced threats to his life before, including two assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign. Although the president often spends weekends at his resort, he and First Lady Melania Trump were at the White House when the breach at Mar-a-Lago occurred.
After entering near the north gate of the property, the man was confronted by two Secret Service agents and a Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputy, according to Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw.
“He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with them. At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” Bradshaw said at a news conference. The two agents and the deputy “fired their weapons to neutralize the threat.”
The FBI asked residents who live near Mar-a-Lago to check any security cameras they may have for video that could help investigators.
Investigators are working to compile a psychological profile, and a motive is still under investigation. Asked whether the individual was known to law enforcement, Bradshaw said, “Not right now.”
The incident comes as the country has been rocked by spasms political violence.
Trump survived an assassination attempt during a 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pa. The gunman fired eight shots, one grazing Trump’s ear, before being killed by a Secret Service counter-sniper.
A few months later, a man tried to assassinate Trump while he played golf at his West Palm Beach club, a few miles from Mar-a-Lago. A Secret Service agent spotted that man, Ryan Routh, aiming a rifle through the shrubbery before Trump came into view. Officials said Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire and caused Routh to drop his weapon.
Routh was found guilty last year and sentenced this month to life in prison.
The White House referred all questions to the Secret Service and FBI.
There have been other recent incidents of political violence as well.
In the last year, there was the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk; the assassination of the Democratic leader in the Minnesota state House and her husband and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife; and an arson attack at the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.
Five days ago, a Georgia man armed with a shotgun was arrested as he sprinted towards the west side of the U.S. Capitol.
And on Jan. 6, 2021, a violent pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol and tried to stop Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.
Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.
